Darnall View Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had a system in place to ensure accidents and incidents were analysed, and trends and patterns identified to mitigate future risks. Lessons learnt resulting from accident and incidents, complaints, safeguarding, staff surveys, and resident and relative surveys were identified and actions taken to ensure service improvement. Ongoing monitoring took place to ensure changes were sustained.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. The provider used a hospital passport which was generated from the electronic care planning system. This gave information to other professionals to ensure they had the most updated information when people moved between different care providers. One healthcare professional said, “Safety is a priority and Darnall View works collaboratively with other healthcare providers. They maintain continuity of care during hospital admissions and discharges.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider had a process in place to ensure people were safeguarded from the risk of abuse, and shared concerns quickly and appropriately. People felt safe living at the home and relatives raised no safety concerns. One relative said, “I have never seen anything I haven't liked. It's a good place and [family member] is safe in their hands.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with the appropriate legal authority. In care homes this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which forms part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. Records showed people were supported in the least restrictive way, in line with and promoting the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were sought when required and any conditions imposed were followed and recorded in care planning documentation.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Risks associated with people’s care were identified and managed to keep people safe. Risk assessments detailed how staff should mitigate risks in relation to things such as nutrition and hydration, weight loss, mobility and falls, and the use of equipment. This ensured staff had the right information to minimise risks and keep people safe. For example, where people required the use of a hoist and sling to transfer, information regarding the size and type of slings to use and details on loop configuration were recorded. Risks assessments were reviewed regularly to ensure any changes were communicated. One staff member said, “Risk is managed by completing risk assessments in all areas of care and completing up to date care plans with clear instructions and guidance for the team. Risk is also managed on a day-to-day basis so that we are assessing changes or concerns to client's needs, when this occurs then changes in practices are reviewed.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Environmental checks were completed in line with expected standards and records of building safety checks were well maintained. Care plans were in place to record environmental safety and included personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) to ensure people could be safely evacuated from the building in an emergency.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. The provider had a robust recruitment system in place which supported them to recruit staff who were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Following recruitment, staff received a thorough induction which included mandatory training and shadowing experienced staff. Staff continued to receive ongoing training throughout their employment to ensure they were competent to carry out their roles. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team and found them approachable. One staff member said, “I feel supported by the manager. I have had a supervision recently with them.” People told us they were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their needs. Relatives told us there were always enough staff available when they visited the home. One relative said, “There are always plenty of staff around when I visit and they are interacting with people. The staff really care.” Another relative said, “There is always enough staff, and they seem happy to be working there. The atmosphere is always very pleasant and welcoming. There is nice and homely and family orientated.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. The provider had systems in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of cross infection. The provider aimed to minimise infection through staff training and stringent cleaning protocols. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and used this as appropriate. During our assessment we found all areas, including both communal and personal spaces, were clean, well-presented and maintained to a good quality. People and relatives told us the home was kept clean. One relative said, “It is a clean home, and bedrooms are kept clean and fresh.” Another relative said, “It [the home] is very clean. I have never been yet, and it be anything other than spotless.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People received their medicines as prescribed by staff who were competent to administer them safely. The provider’s medication management systems were well organised and records clearly documented to evidence stock control and administration. People had medication plans in place which gave instruction and direction to staff on how to support people to take their medicines. People who were prescribed medicines on an ‘as and when’ required basis, often referred to as PRN, had protocols in place to ensure safe and appropriate administration.